Month: July 2014
Limited US means to fight ISIS
Brett McGurk, an assistant US secretary of state, said recently that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is “no longer a terrorist organization. It is a full-blown army.” Others contend that the group will self-implode, or that the threat it poses to the United States is overblown.
On Thursday, Johns Hopkins and the Middle East Institute hosted an event to explore these questions. Omar al-Nidawi of Gryphon Partners joined Middle East Institute scholars Richard Clarke, Steven Simon, and Randa Slim in a discussion moderated by Daniel Serwer.
Simon argued against too much US engagement. He recalled that in 2006, a debate raged over to how to stem the tide of violence in Iraq. One camp, led by General David Petraeus, advocated a sweeping counterinsurgency strategy spearheaded by a troop surge. The other faction, headed by General George Casey, was more circumspect. Petraeus’s theory was flawed, he said, because Maliki’s was not a legitimate government, but rather a sectarian faction in a civil war. Petraeus prevailed, and President Bush deployed 20,000 additional troops. But in retrospect, Simon argued, Casey’s view seems shrewder than Petraeus’s, which was short-sighted. The resources required for a counterinsurgency effort are no longer available. America is powerless to do much now that its forces are out of Iraq and Prime Minister Maliki is in charge. We can use drones or other military tools to decapitate ISIS as a counter-terrorism measure, but counter-insurgency efforts by the US are no longer possible.
Maliki retains a large degree of support among Iraq’s Shia majority, said Slim. Indeed, as ISIS rounds up and executes Shia in Iraq and Syria, Maliki, Assad, and Hezbollah only grow more popular among the Shia. However, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani’s public split with the Prime Minister could be a game changer. This could pave the way for the formation of a consensus government, led perhaps by Basra governor Majid al Nasrawi. Another possibility is an alliance between Sadrists and former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi, who won a majority of seats in 2010. But Allawi lacks Iranian support. The only way this could work is if the Sadrists aligned with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.
The Iranians believe ISIS is part of a larger Sunni conspiracy to destabilize its Shia allies, Iraq and Syria, Slim said. They see Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and even the US as conspiring against Iranian interests in the region. Tehran has argued that forcing Maliki to step down would hand ISIS a victory. But Iran is much more concerned with losing Assad than with losing Maliki. There are any number of Shia leaders in Iraq who could replace Maliki, but Assad is probably the end of the line in Syria.
Sunnis are not as united as the Shia, said al-Nidawi. Divisions have deepened since 2010, when Maliki formed a government in spite of Allawi’s Iraqyyia bloc having won more seats. The rifts were exacerbated when Maliki purged the military and government of perceived (Sunni) enemies. His victory in April weakened the argument of those who sought a political solution, and gave traction to those Sunni who want to use violence to affect change. Short term reforms accommodating Sunni interests in gaining real power, self-government and security could however pave the way for a lasting solution, even if a complete reversal of de-Ba’athification is not feasible. Reintegrating some high profile Sunni politicians would also go a long way towards stemming the conflict. There are thousands of young Sunni men in Anbar and elsewhere who could be persuaded to fight against ISIS.
The Iraqi army is not as hopeless as people imagine. Assad’s army was in shambles during the first months of the Syrian rebellion. But they ultimately got their act together. Some remnant of Iraq’s army will do the same. The Americans have found units with as many as 300,000 troops worthy of support. Syria integrated its irregular Shabiha militia into its regular forces. Maliki will likely follow suit with the Shia militias in Iraq.
It is tempting to wait patiently and allow the Sunni insurgency and the Iran-supported government fight each other to a standstill, as Israel did during the Iran-Iraq war, Clarke said. But if ISIS is allowed to remain in Iraq and Syria, it could pose a threat akin to the Taliban in 1990s. In addition, regional stability is a legitimate American interest, as is blocking an expansion of Iran’s power and influence.
Clarke agreed with Simon that American policy options are limited. The first is to peel off some of the more nationalist Sunnis from the insurgency. Second, we need to think seriously about supporting independence for Kurdistan, if the Kurds will fight ISIS. Even Turkey is warming to the idea of an independent Kurdistan, whose establishment could shift the balance of power in the region away from the ISIS. A Kurdish state could also be a boon to Israel, which has imported Kurdistan’s oil and has long pursued alliances with its non-Arab neighbors. The US should also get serious about arming moderate Syrian rebels, who are fighting ISIS in northern Syria. Clarke called the administration’s current policy “flat ass pathetic.” Simon cautioned that by supplying them with weapons, we take ownership of the conflict. We may also cause more fragmentation, as factions compete for resources. Clarke countered that Obama’s “half assed” approach is undermining confidence of our allies in the region.
The speakers agreed that ISIS poses a serious threat to the region, and could ultimately endanger the United States and its allies. In the end, however, the US must recognize its limited capacity to affect change in the region.
The complete audio of this rich discussion is here.
Here is the video:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Gaza enigma
The current Gaza war is an enigma. Israel’s “mowing the grass” strategy, if it can be called by that offensive label, condemns it to repeated military efforts intended to provide respites from attacks without the prospect of an acceptable long-term political outcome. Hamas’ use of rockets and infiltration that kill few people but terrorize many seems calculated to shore up its reputation for “resistance” but likewise to lack a political end state.
Yet when some Israelis and Palestinians describe what it is they would like to see happen, there is a hint of similarity. Hamas’ proposal for a ten-year truce includes
…lifting the Israeli siege in Gaza through the opening of its borders with Israel to commerce and people, the establishment of an international seaport and airport under U.N. supervision, the expansion of the permitted fishing zone in the Gaza sea to 10 kilometers, and the revitalization of Gaza industrial zone.
Or, as a statement from Gaza “academics, public figures and activists” put it: “we call for a ceasefire only when negotiated conditions result in the following:
- Freedom of movement of Palestinians in and out of the Gaza Strip.
- Unlimited import and export of supplies and goods, including by land, sea and air.
- Unrestricted use of the Gaza seaport.
- Monitoring and enforcement of these agreements by a body appointed by the United Nations, with appropriate security measures.”
The devil, as always, is in the details, which I suppose are covered in that stunningly undramatic phrase “with appropriate security measures.”
Once the current conflict is over, Israel is not going to want Hamas to be free to import more rockets. But even a retired Israeli Brigadier General writes:
Weakening Hamas may ultimately produce a cease-fire arrangement that prevents the remilitarization of Gaza — with Egypt effectively sealing its border with the territory — and deters Hamas from using violence. Such an outcome may allow for the opening of Gaza’s crossings to extensive humanitarian assistance and economic development channeled through the Palestinian Authority, to the benefit of the people of Gaza rather than Hamas.
There is of course a potentially big gap between “unlimited” and “unrestricted” in the Palestinian version and “extensive” in the Israeli version, but both statements seem to recognize that the Gaza status quo ante was not sustainable. I find it hard to believe Hamas will ever agree to anything resembling demilitarization, but depriving it of longer-range rockets may not be beyond possibility. Deputy National Security Adviser Blinken pushed the demilitarization line yesterday on NPR.
Anyone who has been to Gaza understands that its relationship with its nearest neighbors is a major determinant of the welfare of its people and their economy. Cut off from Israel and Egypt, it is an open air prison. Unless Egypt is prepared to take it back, an option some Israelis would like to pursue but few Egyptians would countenance, Gaza needs commerce with Egypt and Israel even to begin to thrive.
This isn’t as visionary as it may sound to some.I am reminded of a colleague who keeps Kosher and attended a meeting in Gaza in the period between the two intifadas. Could the hotel supply Kosher food? Of course, it replied, through contacts in Israel.
There are Palestinians and Israelis who don’t want their common interest in commerce to prevail over mutual loathing and military confrontation. The current destruction in Gaza will make the road back to a more normal relationship long and hard. Palestinians will seek justice. Israelis will want security. It will sound as if they agree on nothing.
But still it is important to keep in mind that wars end, people return to more normal discourse, relationships and commerce. Jews and Arabs have known periods of strife, or worse than that, and periods of coexistence, or even more than that. The enigma is not forever.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Pakistan’s better tomorrow
Pakistan experienced its first democratic transfer of power with the election of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in May 2013. This historic election was celebrated throughout the population and demonstrated the widespread desire to confront the country’s greatest obstacles. Tariq Fatemi, Special Assistant to Prime Minister Sharif, spoke at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Monday about Pakistan’s vision for regional prosperity and economic development. He contended that Pakistan is on the rise and is making gradual yet sustainable progress under the new government.
Prime Minister Sharif has made his priorities clear in revitalizing the country and providing for a better future for Pakistan. Fatemi stated that one of Sharif’s main concerns lies in the growing energy crisis that has hindered the country for many years. The shortages in gas and electricity have resulted in weakened economic activity in key national industries. The prime minister has thus made it a fundamental part of the national agenda to address this issue because there can be no meaningful improvement in the economy or the lives of the people without a stable energy supply.
The new government has also placed emphasis on building relationships with neighboring countries and global powers. Prime Minister Sharif recently met with Indian Prime Minister Modi to discuss a future amicable relationship between the two countries. This was a historic meeting between the two democratically elected prime ministers as a means to move past the strained relations between India and Pakistan. This relationship could ultimately not only be beneficial for India and Pakistan, but also for the prosperity and growth of the entire region.
Prime Minister Sharif is also invested in Pakistani and Chinese relations. China has played a pivotal role in assisting with economic improvement in Pakistan, as well as looking for solutions to the growing energy problem. The EU has also demonstrated interest in Pakistan’s recent progress, thus opening it up to increased foreign direct investment from European countries. Fatemi also emphasized the importance of ties with the US, despite strained relations in the past decade. Nevertheless, the new Pakistani government has proven its dedication to developing substantial and committed relations on a global scale.
Another objective of the new government is eliminating the extremist threat within Pakistani borders. Thus far, they have been successful in capturing militants and destroying extremist safe havens and communication systems. Prime Minister Sharif also has been working with Afghanistan on border control in order to eliminate the spread of militancy and extremism. He has made it clear that Pakistan is committed to this operation as long as needed.
While Pakistan is currently making progress, the government still must combat the weak institutions and plethora of economic problems from the past. Fatemi highlighted the importance of restoring the education system. The inherent linkage between education, awareness, and the economy must be recognized in order for Pakistan to move forward as a prosperous nation.
He also argued that Pakistan could benefit from a better utilization of youth. They need not be a drain on the national economy, but rather contributing members of society. The government should establish technical schools across the country in order to foster necessary employment skills. Youth could then work towards reviving Pakistan’s textile industry, with the advantage of a large supply of cotton. Prime Minister Sharif is optimistic regarding potential youth involvement and bottom-up approach to economic growth.
“Pakistan is on the road to a better tomorrow,” concluded Fatemi. It is likely to be a long and challenging journey, but Pakistanis are eager to move forward. We will see in due time as to whether the conviction of this new leadership can usher the country into a new era of political and economic improvement.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Damnably inconsistent
While the Middle East burns, policymakers can’t seem to agree on how to douse the fire. This discord was on full display Monday, at the Middle East Policy Council’s annual conference. Speakers included Kenneth Pollack, Paul Pillar, Amin Tarzi, and Ambassador Chas Freeman, with Thomas Mattair moderating. Pollack sought a more robust military presence in the region, while Freeman advocated for a hands-off approach. Pillar and Tarzi fell somewhere in between.
Pollack said America must reengage fully with the Middle East, diplomatically and militarily. From the beginning, Obama wrongly assumed that America had overinvested in the region. He believed that the US was in fact a major part of the problem and couldn’t affect the outcome of events in any case. These assumptions have proven demonstrably false over the last five years, he said. The Middle East today is, amazingly, in even worse shape than it was in 2006.
He noted a shift in Obama’s approach to the region in the last few years, beginning with the appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State. Kerry’s attempt to revive the peace process signaled a more hands-on approach. The announcement of half a billion dollars in aid to the Syrian rebels was also a positive sign.
Moving forward, the old adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is especially apropos. America could have reduced the costs we are now incurring had we intervened earlier. We should have provided more support for Syrian rebels at beginning of civil war. When the US gets involved earlier, we have more leverage when things go awry.
Pillar said that the Hippocratic principle of “first do no harm” should take precedence over Pollack’s “ounce of prevention.” “Bumper sticker” solutions will not address our problems in the region. America’s Middle East policy must be ad hoc.
We have an unfortunate Manichaean tendency to divide the world into “ally” and “enemy,” Pillar said. US policy should be more flexible than that. It should serve our interests without regard to labels. Concluding a nuclear deal with Iran is one occasion where we must deal in shades of grey. Iranian interests sometimes clash with ours, as in Syria. But other times they converge, as in Iraq.
Tarzi argued against Pillar’s “ad hoc” approach to the Middle East. We must have stable partners in the region, he said. We must also look at why Iran began seeking nuclear weapons in the first place. Khameinei realizes that possession of the bomb gets you a seat at the table with the big boys, while giving it up means you get the boot (Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi). Assad may have saved his regime by using chemical weapons on his people, setting a dangerous precedent. America cannot allow these precedents to stand.
Tarzi added that Iran would not attempt to strike Israel or the US, a belief that was echoed to him by a number of experts on a recent trip to Israel.
Freeman cautioned against confusing sanctions and military posturing with diplomacy. Obama said at West Point “Our military has no peer.” But he added, “Just because we have the best hammer doesn’t mean every problem is a nail.” Unmatched military prowess has not proven equal to many of the problems in the Middle East and elsewhere. It is hard to think of any US project in the Middle East not at or near a dead-end. American efforts at negotiating Middle East peace are not so much dead, said Freeman, as “so putrid as to not be fit for a wake.”
Our attempts at democracy building have failed spectacularly. In fact we have pulled down several budding democracies in their infancy, as was the case with Egypt. US counterterrorism programs are only fanning the flames of anti-Americanism. In Iraq we replaced secular dictatorship with a religious one, and gave birth to the jihadistan we see today.
We have repeatedly told leaders in Middle East that they must be “with us or against us,” Freeman said. They remain annoyingly unreliable in this regard. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is with us on Iran and Syria, against us in Iraq. Salafists are against us in Iraq, with us in Syria.
We cannot have a policy when people are so “damnably inconsistent.” The US should withdraw from the Middle East, he argued. We must stop protecting Israel, which would make better decisions if it weren’t shielded from the consequences of its actions by the US.
Assad miscalculated with the over-application of force early on, Freeman said. Protests quickly escalated into a civil war. However, the conflict was exacerbated by the flow of arms into the country. We should try to stop the flow of weapons into Syria, rather than attempting to find the “mythical Syrian moderates” who will rise up against Assad.
Pollack countered that it is possible to build a conventional army of non-jihadists in Syria who can oppose both ISIS and Assad. The purely diplomatic solution Freeman proposes is not possible without a shift in the balance of power on the ground.
The speakers did not see eye to eye on much. On one point, however, they did agree: the Middle East in flames, and America has yet to articulate a coherent policy towards the region. Until we do, it will continue to burn.
PS: Here is the video of the event:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Palestine needs new political options
After days of rising hostilities and predictions of a third intifada, Israel launched a ground invasion of Gaza last Thursday night. The number of displaced Gazans has nearly doubled and neither Hamas nor Israel has shown any sign of concession. Critiques and counter-critiques abound, from Hamas’ refusal of the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire to Israel’s relentless military offensive. On Thursday, the American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP) hosted “Israeli-Palestinian War in a New Regional Landscape” with a panel of its own experts. Ziad J. Asali, Saliba Sarsar, Ghaith Al-Omari, and Hussein Ibish discussed the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the political realities that could play out in the future.
Al-Omari, ATFP Executive Director, analyzed the current political dynamic between Israel and Hamas. “We are entering a posturing moment before a deal is struck for the ceasefire,” he stated. Both sides have made their priorities clear and have proven how much is at stake in this longstanding conflict.
After weeks of heightened tensions, Prime Minister Netanyahu initially accepted the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire this week, while Hamas refused it. Hamas has thus received a great deal of criticism from the international community due to the continued loss of civilian lives. Al-Omari stated that this decision derives from Hamas’ three fundamental objectives in the current conflict:
- Hamas wants to emerge in a position that would allow it to claim some form of victory. Thus far, they have entirely failed to do so.
- Hamas needs a ceasefire that provides some kind of gain. Again, Hamas has failed in this as well, with the Egyptian ceasefire proposal allowing no territorial or political advantages.
- Lastly, Hamas wants Qatar and Turkey to play a role in the ceasefire. Neither has had a significant role so far, as Egypt has been in the lead.
Hamas has prioritized its own objectives, at great humanitarian cost to Gazans in the last several days. Thus, Al-Omari stated that it is absolutely necessary that we open up Gaza in the short-term. Egypt and the US can play a critical role in this context and it is ultimately in their best interests to do so.
Many other regional factors have also had an impact on the current hostilities between Hamas and Israel. Ibish, ATFP Senior Fellow, discussed divisions within Hamas, which is both a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate and an ally of Iran. Hamas is also in need of external help, as support from Syria has dried up. The rise of ISIS also causes concern.
At the end of the day, the outcome of this current violence will most likely look a great deal like the “old normal.” This is exactly what Hamas doesn’t want—it will be a crushing blow after the violence and innocent lives lost to return to the way things were. This “old normal” is a desperate box and Hamas is doing everything it can to get out of it, as evidenced by its controversial refusal of the ceasefire this week.
The Palestinians ultimately do not have a lot of options: they lack domestic choices and the great majority does not trust Hamas or Fatah. It is also evident that an increasing number of Palestinians have put more and more blame on Hamas with each rise in hostilities.
According to Asali, President and founder of ATFP, we must rebuild the credibility of the Palestinian leadership and open up the political space. If the international community is as invested in a two state solution as it claims, it can assist, with funding. International sponsors can demand the political space be opened up and another round of elections in the future. They can aid in a protracted campaign with a broader range of candidates other than Hamas and Fatah. This would allow more moderates who better represent the Palestinians to emerge. There never has been a more opportune time to put the international community’s words to the test and break the grim cycle of violence.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This is dignified
My hat is off to Frans Timmermans, Netherlands Foreign Minister, who spoke at the UN Security Council today:
Note the emphasis on justice. The Dutch, who have held their own peacekeepers culpable for the murder of Bosnians evicted from the Dutchbat compound at Srebrenica, are serious about that.
RSS - Posts
